| Title |
A comparative study on endovascular treatment of (sub)acute critical limb ischemia: mechanical thrombectomy vs thrombolysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s131503 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariya Kronlage, Ilka Printz, Britta Vogel, Erwin Blessing, Oliver J Müller, Hugo A Katus, Christian Erbel |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare different interventional methods for treatment of (sub)acute limb ischemia upon thrombotic occlusions of the lower extremity in terms of their safety and efficacy in a tertiary hospital setting. This is a retrospective, single-center study of non-randomized data. A total of 202 patients, including 26 critically ill patients, underwent rotational thrombectomy (Rotarex(®)), local thrombolysis (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator), or combination of both at the University Hospital Heidelberg (2006-2015). The different interventional procedures were compared in terms of overall and amputation-free survival, as well as patency in a 1-year follow-up (Kaplan-Meier analysis). The study demonstrated a primary revascularization success of >98% in all groups. One year after revascularization, primary and secondary patency after mechanical thrombectomy alone were significantly better in comparison to local thrombolysis or a combination of Rotarex(®) and lysis (63% and 85%, P<0.05). Overall survival 12 months after intervention reached up to 96% in noncritically ill patients, and amputation-free survival was 94.3% in all three groups. Mean hospitalization duration and rate of major bleedings were significantly increased after thrombolysis compared to Rotarex(®) (P<0.05). In patients with (sub)acute limb ischemia, Rotarex(®) mechanical thrombectomy represents a safe and effective alternative to thrombolysis and is associated with a reduced rate of major bleedings, shorter hospitalization durations, and lower costs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#925
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,119
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#32
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.